1. Travis Perry says:

    Stephen, good post. I found your point 11 especially enlightening.

  2. notleia says:

    I of two minds about #10. Is it slanderous to name their harmful behavior if they’re victim-blaming or otherwise perpetrating sexist crap? I don’t find that most defenders of an abuser are THAT naive, say, if they’re above 30. More often than not it smells something more like willful ignorance.

    (Like peeps assuming that the first time they hear of an accusation, that there hasn’t been due diligence done when the legwork had probably been started months ago. [Yes, I am calling you out])

    • Organizations like Publishers’ Weekly HAVE to be extremely careful in accusing people of crimes like this. I always assume that posts have been carefully weighed against evidence.

      • Travis Perry says:

        Brennan, I don’t assume that and you shouldn’t either. PW did not in fact accuse anyone of committing abuse–what they did was report that conferences have reacted to allegations of abuse. Reporting that reaction takes a minimum verification of a lot less than you apparently think.

        Though in fact, PW did MORE than that minimum, as I mentioned in my comment above. But, I don’t think it’s safe to assume something is correct because it’s been reported nationally. Not every reporting organization does the same level of due diligence–I would say it’s better to maintain at least a little skepticism.

    • Travis Perry says:

      Well, as the primary person who questioned how much information was actually available, note I was concerned about people assuming “because it’s in the press, it’s true” because I know many reported events are false. I was also concerned with what I saw as a jumping-on-the-bandwagon-syndrome, following a crowd to a conclusion without hard evidence, which lots of decent, well-meaning people do without even thinking about.

      The Publisher’s Weekly article was pretty bare bones and reported names of people conferences had disbarred under accusations and little more. I insisted at the time that such reporting proves that something (bad) happened, but does not prove what happened, (specifically abuse)–though I also said at the time that PW may have in fact done more investigation, but no one knowledgeably said that they did at the time (even after I repeatedly asked things like, “If you have more information, please share” and “If you know more, please mention it,” for which I got no reply at first).

      Eventually, the person who wrote the article posted here on Speculative Faith (on the post for Part 2 of this series if I remember right) that indeed, more investigation was done than the minimum and that at least two sources were involved in the reporting of each person. Underneath that reporter’s post, I publicly retracted my skepticism about the PW article. Which I’m now repeating.

      If what I just said wasn’t clear enough, I’m saying I was wrong about the nature of the PW article–though note, I was never dogmatic about my opinion; I was continually asking for more information. Now I’ve received it and it’s clear I was mistaken.

      I have no regrets for questioning it, though. Some people had more info than me, but some did NOT and believed the exact same things anyway, largely because it had been reported by PW. I know that many people feel confident something must be true because a number of people they trust believe it, but I don’t think like that and I never have. And I’m not sorry about it–I think it’s just and right for me to want more information before I follow along with ideas assumed to be true without real evidence.

  3. JJ Johnson says:

    This has been an excellent series- and I agree spot on with a majority of the things you’ve spoken about. Like Travis I find point 11 to be particularly telling. This is what bothers me most, and to often we see people apologize to those that they offended, but never really pour out their heart about their sin they have come face to face with. Most of it is pride- of course, and humility is a tough thing at times… Again great post

    • Travis Perry says:

      Yeah, it’s telling. Though I remember a televangelist (Jimmy Swaggart, in 1988) doing what appeared to be a really full confession of bad behavior (he was hiring prostitutes), including acknowledging culpability before God including voluntarily stepping down from his ministry. But it wasn’t long before he was preaching again…and accused of hiring other prostitutes…a very sad situation really.

      I told that story to illustrate that even a full confession doesn’t really guarantee the problem is over.

      I hope the reverse can be true–that someone could be really dealing with problems, even though their confession was pretty weak. (But I kinda doubt it.)

  4. If a man is accused of assault, the public needs to assume that accusation is true until proven otherwise. By that, I mean that we need to take reasonable precautions, such as: if a person (male or female–females also commit assault, like in the case of Lecrae’s childhood abuser) is accused of molesting a child, don’t let them conduct children’s church. I’m so sick of this junk happening, and have seen it time and again. That’s why I’m a hawk when people are spending time with my daughter. Because this crap happens ALL the time. STOP trying to justify potential abusers. How often are people wrongly accused of abuse? Not often. How often are abusers never ratted on? Extremely often. What’s the likelihood a potential abuser is an actual abuser? Pretty dang high. Let’s not be naïve, friends.

    Stephen, I always appreciate your loving responses to difficult situations. Yes, we need to not slander people. We need to conduct ourselves with honor, even when calling out heinous crimes. And we need to watch ourselves, lest we ourselves fall into some other type of sin (like pride-filled rage) while railing against their extremely damaging sin. We must focus on our own holiness, and on walking in intimacy with Christ, and that gives us way better radar for when things are “off.”

  5. Stephen, I like your point 10 and needed to re-read it today. Yesterday I found the “confession” of one of those named in the PW article. I’d already read something about that post—that he only put it up when he’d been contacted by the PW reporter and realized that his misconduct would go public. A 100 or so commenters went on record praising him for his transparency and his bravery. And I wanted to puke. The same had happened at a forum when another of the four made public what had happened. But the fact is, these people were reacting before they had the whole story. They didn’t know. Some of them were reacting from their own experience which had been positive and uncompromising. So they aren’t “enabling” this behavior. They simply are unable to speak to it because it’s outside their experience and they like the guy they were responding to. So, no, they should not be vilified or condemned. And it’s good to remember that.

    Becky

What do you think?